Slashdot Mirror


Telegram Adds 'Delete Everywhere' Nuclear Option -- Killing Chat History (techcrunch.com)

Instant messaging service Telegram has added a feature that lets a user delete messages in one-to-one and/or group private chats, after the fact, and not only from their own inbox. From a report: The new 'nuclear option' delete feature allows a user to selectively delete their own messages and/or messages sent by any/all others in the chat. They don't even have to have composed the original message or begun the thread to do so. They can just decide it's time. Let that sink in. All it now takes is a few taps to wipe all trace of a historical communication -- from both your own inbox and the inbox(es) of whoever else you were chatting with (assuming they're running the latest version of Telegram's app).

46 comments

  1. First rule of robotics by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Informative

    Never assume any communications system is not already being backed up at all the link points, and by multiple intelligence gathering agencies in multiple venues.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:First rule of robotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trotsky-slut agitpropers would try deleting incriminating shit from the devils azzwhole if it for'ard their pestilent thought-criming agenda.

    2. Re:First rule of robotics by andydread · · Score: 1

      well then if that were the case i'm not sure law-enforcement would be screaming about the "urgency" that we give them back doors to encryption.

    3. Re:First rule of robotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I was going to ask if this "nuked" all record also from Telegram's servers. Most likely, no. Excuse: in case of court order...

    4. Re:First rule of robotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
      He got an ice pick
      That made his ears burn

      Whatever happened to dear old Lenny?
      The great Elmyra
      And Sancho Panza?

      Whatever happened to the heroes?
      Whatever happened to the heroes?

      Whatever happened to all the heroes?
      All the Shakespearoes?
      They watched their Rome burn

      Whatever happened to the heroes?
      Whatever happened to the heroes?
      No more heroes any more
      No more heroes any more

      Whatever happened to all the heroes?
      All the Shakespearoes?
      They watched their Rome burn

      Whatever happened to the heroes?
      Whatever happened to the heroes?
      No more heroes any more
      No more heroes any more
      No more heroes any more
      No more heroes any more

  2. 35 years late by Ignatius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."

    1. Re: 35 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident proves fake news reporting for the Ministry of Truth is nothing new.

    2. Re:35 years late by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      My first thought was "how could I frame a post so that any response looks stupid and/or evil if my post were removed from the thread?"

      So, how long before someone realizes this can now be done trivially?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:35 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even need to do that. Just selectively delete the other persons messages from the chat (it removes them from both sides). It would work especially well versus people who tend to send in multiple small messages rather than one big message.

  3. Screenshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Defeated, LOL.

  4. Good thing screenshots are impossible by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> All it now takes is a few taps to wipe all trace of a historical communication -- from both your own inbox and the inbox(es) of whoever else you were chatting with

    Good thing screenshots are impossible

    >> (assuming they're running the latest version of Telegram's app)

    Oh, so nevermind. It never would work.

    1. Re:Good thing screenshots are impossible by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Good thing screenshots are impossible

      That screenshot is just deepfake news, I never said that. My best friend is a green alien women, I would never say anything that insensitive.

  5. Re: if-trump-obstructed-justice-he-cant-be-exonera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I bet you wish you had a "delete posts everywhere" button to hide the last 2 years of your hilariously tragic life.

    You're left now with thousands of hours spent on an internet forum regurgitating Democrat lies you were stupid enough to believe.

    Literally your only out now is suicide. Are you going to hang yourself, drink antifreeze, or jump off the roof? Can you please livestream it?

  6. Do not have this program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear is when you don't live. There you go.

  7. sounds like too much backroom work by swschrad · · Score: 1

    how about delete all Telegram infrastructure with two taps?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  8. Nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Anybody with a camera is not impressed. This is not "nuclear", except in the sense that it is tiny and meaningless.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Nonsense by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is probably quite effective. Consider that the worst most people have to worry about is normal law enforcement, who don't have supercomputers and zero day exploits available, so the best they can do is try to unlock your phone and check its contents.

      Securely deleting data, especially if it is by deleting an encryption key for that data, is generally very effective against law enforcement and we have seen over and over again that it works.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Easy enough to screen capture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way this works is on an unexploitable non-jailbroken device, and only under the other party thinks to use a second cellphone to snap sphotos of the telegram running cellphone's screen if they can't screencap on the device itself.

    There is a reason I don't believe in 'nuke history' options like this: Because they just don't work, and they give a false sense of security anything you said was actually private. Think hard about what you say and to who, and don't trust that you can make it go away later. Plenty of examples of that in the media today, and even when analog was king.

    1. Re:Easy enough to screen capture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screenshots can easily be fabricated and therefore would not be presentable as evidence in court.

    2. Re: Easy enough to screen capture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screenshots can usually capture enough data to facilitate finding enough correlating data to prove a case, or at least facilitate finding enough to provide probable cause to open an investigation which would likely uncover a pattern of behavior.

    3. Re: Easy enough to screen capture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it's a chat log.

      Nutjob: "This person said all of these things! Look, I have SCREENSHOTS to PROVE it!"
      Sanity: "He's a nutjob, I never said any of that and he obviously just made up fake images."
      Judge: "Case dismissed."

  10. The faux-profundity style by Sveljkovic · · Score: 2

    How about an indefinite moratorium on cloying expressions like ‘let that sink in’. In living memory ‘a historical communication’ could be obliterated simply by being set alight. Might even still be true, in a few instances.

    1. Re:The faux-profundity style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning your copy of a document doesn't usually set fire to the copy you sent to someone else.

    2. Re: The faux-profundity style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. A good idea but unnecessary for most people who are smart enough not to say completely stupid stuff.

    3. Re:The faux-profundity style by Sveljkovic · · Score: 1

      Good point. And for reasons discussed in other threads here, Telegram's new feature won't erase ‘copies’ of their messages either.

    4. Re:The faux-profundity style by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Based on all the ads I've seen, I bet Grammarly would have caught that expression and suggested something else.

    5. Re:The faux-profundity style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why I said it doesn't usually set fire to THE copy you sent. I did not say it would do anything to copies of the copy.

    6. Re:The faux-profundity style by Sveljkovic · · Score: 1

      Based on all the ads I've seen, I bet Grammarly would have caught that expression and suggested something else.

      What could be better than an algorithm at fixing robotic prose.

  11. Re:Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, that's "off topic"

    She had a big problem with e-mail retention and I think Telegram is advertising a precise solution to this.

    You care you explain?

  12. Re:/if-trump-obstructed-justice-he-cant-be-exonera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Innocent until proven guilty. Did he find evidence of guilt? No. Then he is innocent beyond any doubt. I know that's now how liberals want the world to work because they believe accusation is proof of guilt, but this is true only in their echo chamber.

  13. Literally impossible to work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stems from the same insanity as the entire "copyright" crime scheme: Confusing actual matter/energy and the laws it follows with mere information, and the different laws that meta-level follows.

    If you fell for believing that you can "own" and "steal" information, or even "rent" it (seriously, LOL), rather than just copy it, then such a nuclear option "makes sense".

    Thanks Content Mafia cokeheads!

    (I worked in nearly all media industry businesses. They all know it's a lie. Their licensess even are based on that! And I know for a fact that it's the result of the side-effects of half of them snorting cocaine.)

    1. Re: Literally impossible to work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass

  14. Ahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it bad when no one believes your only selling point is a lie?

    They will never delete any data. They just want more.

  15. Many Assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (assuming they're running the latest version of Telegram's app)
    - assuming their app is online
    - assuming the content hasn't already been copied / screen-shot / forwarded
    - assuming ...

    The only valid assumption you should make is that ANYTHING you write COULD come back to haunt you ...

  16. Re:If pigs had wings they could fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody has seen the report yet. Some things are still being investigated. It's not over yet.

  17. Whatever by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

    Whenever someone adds Âlet that sink in to whatever they say, Iâ(TM)m less inclined to let anything sink in, and more inclined to think of them as pompous and pretentious. Let that sink in.

    1. Re:Whatever by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Whenever somebody says "let that sink in" in person, and I glare at them thinking about what a weasel they are. For a few really long moments. While making a disgruntled, "Hmmmmmm" sound. Then I make a horrified face, shake my head, and mutter, "Nah."

      If they tell me that I am surprised to learn something, I turn my head and refuse to show interest until they stop talking. Then I show interest, as in, I'm wondering if now they're going to something on a different topic, or if they're still blathering.

      My apologies to actual weasels. Last week I was in park and saw a Long-Tailed Weasel successfully hunt a squirrel. It was a really special moment that I will always cherish. 3 3 real-weasels.

  18. Truly deleting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... all trace of a historical communication ...

    If Telegram and other telecommunication agents are truly deleting content. At best this is good for a 'stop and frisk', or a search warrant after the fact. It's pointless if the government is already spying on a person.

  19. Re: If pigs had wings they could fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is. Slash your wrists, eat rat poison, hang from your belt.

  20. Mark Zuckerberg shoud've used that app... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    ...so the world wouldn't know what he thinks of his trusting users.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  21. desirable property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some use cases this is extremely valuable. Say if you're worried one party had their phone stolen, by police or otherwise. Being able to delete that remotely can increase the likelihood that the information stays private. Not everyone is using Telegram to protect against nation state adversaries who are not worried about revealing their capabilities. Use the right tool for the job, if you need some sort of chain of custody or tamper-resistance, Telegram is not suited. It wasn't suited before this either.